Airbus to Expand Cockpit Automation

[John]

European jet maker Airbus is taking an unprecedented step to expand
cockpit automation: onboard computers that will automatically maneuver
jetliners to avoid midair collisions, without any pilot input.

Known for its pioneering use of computers and software to push the
automation envelope, this time Airbus has decided to cross a new
threshold in replacing pilot decisions with computer commands. For the
first time, flight crews of Airbus planes will be instructed and trained
to rely on autopilots in most cases to escape an impending crash with
another airborne aircraft. Currently, all commercial pilots are required
to instantly disconnect the autopilot when they get an alert of such an
emergency, and manually put their plane into a climb or descent to avoid
the other aircraft.


http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114868117828864620-pgHVZtbrCV92Vgn8zgwXom60Hgg_20070527.html?mod=tff_ main_tff_top
or http://tinyurl.com/lnlky

[FLAV8R]

"John" wrote in message ...
> European jet maker Airbus is taking an unprecedented step to expand
> cockpit automation: onboard computers that will automatically maneuver
> jetliners to avoid midair collisions, without any pilot input.
>
Wow! I feel like I'm reading some sort of SciFi horror story where man (and
woman) are replaced by computers and man is doomed to be eradicated.
What next?! Cars that drive themselves? Oh wait! Mercedes has already been
working on that one.
And my company is working to remove all its workforce and what it can't
remove it outsources to India.

David

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, John > said:
>European jet maker Airbus is taking an unprecedented step to expand
>cockpit automation: onboard computers that will automatically maneuver
>jetliners to avoid midair collisions, without any pilot input.

Each Airbus will be piloted by a pilot and a dog. The pilot is there to
engage the autopilot at the beginning of the flight, and the dog is there
to bite the pilot if he attempts to disengage it.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Compared to system administration, being cursed forever is a step up.
-- Paul Tomko

[john smith]

The full article...

Airbus Planes to Use Computers
In Crash-Avoidance Maneuvers
By ANDY PASZTOR
May 27, 2006; Page A4

European jet maker Airbus is taking an unprecedented step to expand
cockpit automation: onboard computers that will automatically maneuver
jetliners to avoid midair collisions, without any pilot input.

Known for its pioneering use of computers and software to push the
automation envelope, this time Airbus has decided to cross a new
threshold in replacing pilot decisions with computer commands. For the
first time, flight crews of Airbus planes will be instructed and trained
to rely on autopilots in most cases to escape an impending crash with
another airborne aircraft. Currently, all commercial pilots are required
to instantly disconnect the autopilot when they get an alert of such an
emergency, and manually put their plane into a climb or descent to avoid
the other aircraft.

The change, which hasn't been announced yet, comes after lengthy
internal Airbus debates and despite skepticism from pilot groups and
even some aircraft-equipment suppliers.

In spite of significant pilot opposition, the proposed shift sets the
stage for broader use of computerized safety systems down the road to
protect commercial planes, business jets and other aircraft from other
hazards, including flying into natural or man-made obstacles.

Airbus, a unit of European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. and BAE
Systems PLC, plans to start installing the computerized systems on its
A380 superjumbo jets perhaps as soon as next year, pending regulatory
approvals. It intends to gradually install them on all other Airbus
aircraft, including retrofits for older models.

The proposed systems will ensure that all aircraft "respond correctly
and quickly" to alerts with "less stress on the pilot [and] less
potential for injury" to passengers, said Bill Bozin, a top Airbus
safety official. He said some pilots now overreact to such cockpit
alerts, making extreme maneuvers that can throw passengers around, and
in congested airspace even end up putting the aircraft on a collision
course with still other nearby planes. In rare circumstances, pilots
would retain the option of turning off the autopilot and responding on
their own.

The average passenger probably won't notice any difference in an
emergency, but the concept already is prompting a fair bit of
controversy in aviation circles. Larry Newman, a top safety official
with the Air Line Pilots Association, said his group is wary because
"this tends to lead to getting the pilot further and further away from
the process" of responding to emergencies.

The design approach used by Airbus -- essentially trusting computers to
react faster and more predictably than humans to midair alerts and then
revert to normal flight -- is in stark contrast to Boeing Co.'s approach
of relying on pilot judgment in all emergencies. Before Airbus publicly
talked about its decision, Scott Pelton, Boeing's chief engineer for
electronic systems on jetliners, said Boeing would remain "aligned with
our fundamental philosophy," which "believes the captain is in charge."

Write to Andy Pasztor at

[Skywise]

"FLAV8R" > wrote in :

> "John" wrote in message ...
>> European jet maker Airbus is taking an unprecedented step to expand
>> cockpit automation: onboard computers that will automatically maneuver
>> jetliners to avoid midair collisions, without any pilot input.
>>
> Wow! I feel like I'm reading some sort of SciFi horror story where man (and
> woman) are replaced by computers and man is doomed to be eradicated.
> What next?! Cars that drive themselves? Oh wait! Mercedes has already been
> working on that one.
> And my company is working to remove all its workforce and what it can't
> remove it outsources to India.
>
> David

You are obsolete! (from a Twilight Zone episode)

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[The Visitor]

Why not? It's about time. On those real long haul flights, and red-eye
four hour ones, pilots sleep, and often the one that said he will watch
things, sleeps too. They don't want to but it happens.

John wrote:
> European jet maker Airbus is taking an unprecedented step to expand
> cockpit automation: onboard computers that will automatically maneuver
> jetliners to avoid midair collisions, without any pilot input.
>
> Known for its pioneering use of computers and software to push the
> automation envelope, this time Airbus has decided to cross a new
> threshold in replacing pilot decisions with computer commands. For the
> first time, flight crews of Airbus planes will be instructed and trained
> to rely on autopilots in most cases to escape an impending crash with
> another airborne aircraft. Currently, all commercial pilots are required
> to instantly disconnect the autopilot when they get an alert of such an
> emergency, and manually put their plane into a climb or descent to avoid
> the other aircraft.
>
>
> http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114868117828864620-pgHVZtbrCV92Vgn8zgwXom60Hgg_20070527.html?mod=tff_ main_tff_top
>
> or http://tinyurl.com/lnlky

[Matt Barrow]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "FLAV8R" > wrote in
> :
>>
>> Wow! I feel like I'm reading some sort of SciFi horror story where man
>> (and
>> woman) are replaced by computers and man is doomed to be eradicated.
>> What next?! Cars that drive themselves? Oh wait! Mercedes has already
>> been
>> working on that one.
>> And my company is working to remove all its workforce and what it can't
>> remove it outsources to India.
>>
>> David
>
> You are obsolete! (from a Twilight Zone episode)
>
Better yet, "To Serve Man".

[Bob Noel]

In article >, John >
wrote:

[snip]

Anyone who can't see the potential problems with this should be required
to understand the many times automation is discussed in comp.risks.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Skywise]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in news:6v5eg.75$Q73.9093
@news.uswest.net:

>
> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "FLAV8R" > wrote in
>> :
>>>
>>> Wow! I feel like I'm reading some sort of SciFi horror story where man
>>> (and
>>> woman) are replaced by computers and man is doomed to be eradicated.
>>> What next?! Cars that drive themselves? Oh wait! Mercedes has already
>>> been
>>> working on that one.
>>> And my company is working to remove all its workforce and what it can't
>>> remove it outsources to India.
>>>
>>> David
>>
>> You are obsolete! (from a Twilight Zone episode)
>>
> Better yet, "To Serve Man".

mmMMMMMmmmm....soilent green.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[john smith]

> > Better yet, "To Serve Man".

> mmMMMMMmmmm....soilent green.

"Klatu Barata Niktu"
THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL

[Jeff Rogers]

john smith wrote:

> The full article...
>
> Airbus Planes to Use Computers
> In Crash-Avoidance Maneuvers
> By ANDY PASZTOR
> May 27, 2006; Page A4
<blatant copyright violation snipped>

The full article is available at the link the original poster provided.
I believe the WSJ copyrights their articles so it is most likely a
violation to reproduce their works and publish them to the world in
their entirety yourself. Why do that?

[Jeff Rogers]

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >, John >
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Anyone who can't see the potential problems with this should be required
> to understand the many times automation is discussed in comp.risks.

Apparently Airbus is putting serious engineering into this and not just
slapping something together. Why be afraid of any automation? I don't
think that inherently unstable aircraft like the B-2 or X-31 could fly
at all without heavy duty automation. Let's not forget that people
(pilots) have many potential problems too. Consider that some of the
worst nuclear accidents (Chernoybl, Idaho Labs, TMI) were at least
partially caused by humans bypassing or overriding automation systems.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Jeff Rogers > said:
>slapping something together. Why be afraid of any automation? I don't
>think that inherently unstable aircraft like the B-2 or X-31 could fly
>at all without heavy duty automation. Let's not forget that people

Let's also not forget two crashes of the Saab Gripen and one of the YF-22
caused by incorrectly tuned software.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I've never understood why women douse themselves with things that are alleged
to smell of roses/tulips/freesias. What exactly are they trying to attract?
Bees? -- Tanuki

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jeff Rogers > wrote:

> > Anyone who can't see the potential problems with this should be required
> > to understand the many times automation is discussed in comp.risks.
>
> Apparently Airbus is putting serious engineering into this and not just
> slapping something together. Why be afraid of any automation?

I'm not afraid of automation. I'm afraid of people who place too much
faith in automation. Sure, humans make mistakes, sometimes
spectacular mistakes. And automated systems make mistakes.

Note that I never ever said automated systems are better or worse than
human systems. I have this futile hope that people will think thru all
the risks and potential problems.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[john smith]

In article >,
Jeff Rogers > wrote:

> The full article is available at the link the original poster provided.

Yes, provided you have a user id and password.

[Jeff Rogers]

john smith wrote:

> In article >,
> Jeff Rogers > wrote:
>
>
>>The full article is available at the link the original poster provided.
>
>
> Yes, provided you have a user id and password.

Huh? What are you talking about? I read the article just fine without
a user id and password using the link provided.

But if a password WAS required to view the article, wouldn't that be all
the more reason not to republish somebody else's works without their
permission? (I'm guessing that you didn't receive permission, correct
me if I'm wrong) Would you mind if I took something that you made and
gave it away to the world?

[Matt Barrow]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in news:6v5eg.75$Q73.9093
> @news.uswest.net:
>
>>
>> "Skywise" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "FLAV8R" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>>
>>>> Wow! I feel like I'm reading some sort of SciFi horror story where man
>>>> (and
>>>> woman) are replaced by computers and man is doomed to be eradicated.
>>>> What next?! Cars that drive themselves? Oh wait! Mercedes has already
>>>> been
>>>> working on that one.
>>>> And my company is working to remove all its workforce and what it can't
>>>> remove it outsources to India.
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>
>>> You are obsolete! (from a Twilight Zone episode)
>>>
>> Better yet, "To Serve Man".
>
> mmMMMMMmmmm....soilent green.
>
One man, sautéed in olive oil...

[Matt Barrow]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>> > Better yet, "To Serve Man".
>
>> mmMMMMMmmmm....soilent green.
>
> "Klatu Barata Niktu"
> THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL

Down, Gort! Sit! Stay!

[Skywise]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in news:6v5eg.75$Q73.9093
>> @news.uswest.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "Skywise" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "FLAV8R" > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow! I feel like I'm reading some sort of SciFi horror story where
>>>>> man (and
>>>>> woman) are replaced by computers and man is doomed to be eradicated.
>>>>> What next?! Cars that drive themselves? Oh wait! Mercedes has
>>>>> already been
>>>>> working on that one.
>>>>> And my company is working to remove all its workforce and what it
>>>>> can't remove it outsources to India.
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> You are obsolete! (from a Twilight Zone episode)
>>>>
>>> Better yet, "To Serve Man".
>>
>> mmMMMMMmmmm....soilent green.
>>
> One man, sautéed in olive oil...

No MSG!!!!

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Matt Barrow]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Skywise" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in news:6v5eg.75$Q73.9093
>>> @news.uswest.net:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Skywise" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "FLAV8R" > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow! I feel like I'm reading some sort of SciFi horror story where
>>>>>> man (and
>>>>>> woman) are replaced by computers and man is doomed to be eradicated.
>>>>>> What next?! Cars that drive themselves? Oh wait! Mercedes has
>>>>>> already been
>>>>>> working on that one.
>>>>>> And my company is working to remove all its workforce and what it
>>>>>> can't remove it outsources to India.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>> You are obsolete! (from a Twilight Zone episode)
>>>>>
>>>> Better yet, "To Serve Man".
>>>
>>> mmMMMMMmmmm....soilent green.
>>>
>> One man, sautéed in olive oil...
>
> No MSG!!!!
>
> Brian

Don't need it if man is fresh, not frozen!

[Thomas Borchert]

Bob,

> Anyone who can't see the potential problems with this should be required
> to understand the many times automation is discussed in comp.risks.
>

And anyone who can't see the potential benefits should be required to read
the Ueberlingen accident investigation.

So who's more right?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 27 May 2006 22:15:38 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:

>And automated systems make mistakes.

hmm, they work as designed. If somebody programmed a loophole and the
system comes to this point, well. Then there is don't see a mistake. Those
systems don't make any decisions. They do what the programmer told them to
do.

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Martin Hotze > wrote:

> On Sat, 27 May 2006 22:15:38 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:
>
> >And automated systems make mistakes.
>
> hmm, they work as designed. If somebody programmed a loophole and the
> system comes to this point, well. Then there is don't see a mistake. Those
> systems don't make any decisions. They do what the programmer told them to
> do.

Almost. Automated systems have implementation flaws and design flaws.
But sometimes automated systems are affected by environmental conditions
such as high energy particles (which are not impossible at enroute altitudes).

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> > Anyone who can't see the potential problems with this should be required
> > to understand the many times automation is discussed in comp.risks.
>
> And anyone who can't see the potential benefits should be required to read
> the Ueberlingen accident investigation.
>
> So who's more right?

what's your point?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[john smith]

I wonder if this new autopilot enhancement will prevent Airbus aircraft
from midairs with trees that the previous systems failed to prevent?

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 28 May 2006 08:35:55 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:

>> >And automated systems make mistakes.
>>
>> hmm, they work as designed. If somebody programmed a loophole and the
>> system comes to this point, well. Then there is don't see a mistake. Those
>> systems don't make any decisions. They do what the programmer told them to
>> do.
>
>Almost. Automated systems have implementation flaws and design flaws.
>But sometimes automated systems are affected by environmental conditions
>such as high energy particles (which are not impossible at enroute altitudes).

still: the automated system itself does not make the mistake.

yeah, I see your point, of course. :-)

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

[Chris]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, John > said:
>>European jet maker Airbus is taking an unprecedented step to expand
>>cockpit automation: onboard computers that will automatically maneuver
>>jetliners to avoid midair collisions, without any pilot input.
>
> Each Airbus will be piloted by a pilot and a dog. The pilot is there to
> engage the autopilot at the beginning of the flight, and the dog is there
> to bite the pilot if he attempts to disengage it.
>

Yawn, that's an old "joke" saw that published in Flying 12 years ago.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Martin Hotze > writes:

> On Sat, 27 May 2006 22:15:38 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:
>
> >And automated systems make mistakes.
>
> hmm, they work as designed. If somebody programmed a loophole and the
> system comes to this point, well. Then there is don't see a mistake. Those
> systems don't make any decisions. They do what the programmer told them to
> do.

They encounter situations that weren't anticipated. Their reactions
are even worse than human reactions to unanticipated situations.
They're often *better* than humans for the rest of the time, though.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Martin Hotze > writes:

> On Sun, 28 May 2006 08:35:55 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:
>
> >> >And automated systems make mistakes.
> >>
> >> hmm, they work as designed. If somebody programmed a loophole and the
> >> system comes to this point, well. Then there is don't see a mistake. Those
> >> systems don't make any decisions. They do what the programmer told them to
> >> do.
> >
> >Almost. Automated systems have implementation flaws and design flaws.
> >But sometimes automated systems are affected by environmental conditions
> >such as high energy particles (which are not impossible at enroute altitudes).
>
> still: the automated system itself does not make the mistake.

The difference is only important to the accident investigation team
and the lawyers, though. You're just as dead either way.

> yeah, I see your point, of course. :-)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Skywise]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Skywise" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in news:6v5eg.75$Q73.9093
>>>> @news.uswest.net:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Skywise" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> "FLAV8R" > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wow! I feel like I'm reading some sort of SciFi horror story where
>>>>>>> man (and
>>>>>>> woman) are replaced by computers and man is doomed to be
>>>>>>> eradicated. What next?! Cars that drive themselves? Oh wait!
>>>>>>> Mercedes has already been
>>>>>>> working on that one.
>>>>>>> And my company is working to remove all its workforce and what it
>>>>>>> can't remove it outsources to India.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are obsolete! (from a Twilight Zone episode)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Better yet, "To Serve Man".
>>>>
>>>> mmMMMMMmmmm....soilent green.
>>>>
>>> One man, sautéed in olive oil...
>>
>> No MSG!!!!
>>
>> Brian
>
> Don't need it if man is fresh, not frozen!

Light or dark meat?

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Gerry Caron]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Bob,
>
>> Anyone who can't see the potential problems with this should be required
>> to understand the many times automation is discussed in comp.risks.
>>
>
> And anyone who can't see the potential benefits should be required to read
> the Ueberlingen accident investigation.
>
> So who's more right?

The first poster.

Ueberlingen is a case where the Russian crew ignored the ACAS and in
following ATC instructions did exactly the opposite of the ACAS guidance.
If it were automated, the crew would have likely disconnected the A/P to
follow the ATC instructions. You also should recognize that if the Russian
crew had done nothing, they would have been safe (assuming the DHL crew
followed their guidance.)

ACAS exists to provide a last line of defense if ATC fails to provide safe
separation. Following ATC instructions against the advice of an ACAS alert
defeats the purpose of the system. That's the reason for the wording in 14
CFR Part 91.123. If safe separation is maintained, there won't be an ACAS
alert. The current system works well.

If you were to automate it, the benefits are marginal; a bit quicker
response, a bit more accurate flying of the maneuver. But normal pilot
reactions and performance is included in the design. OTOH, the ACAS is a
complex system. When there are faults, it can result in erroneous alerts.
Responding to these alerts may be more dangerous than doing nothing. In the
real world, when these occur, they are usually fairly obvious to a crew, so
they crew ignores it and writes it up for maintenance. Add flight controls
into the system and you just added a huge level of complexity and more
opportunities for bad results.

Gerry

[Thomas Borchert]

Bob,

> what's your point?
>

Are you familiar with the Ueberlingen case? Automation of the proposed
kind could have prevented it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matt Barrow]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Skywise" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Skywise" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in news:6v5eg.75$Q73.9093
>>>>> @news.uswest.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Skywise" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> "FLAV8R" > wrote in
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wow! I feel like I'm reading some sort of SciFi horror story where
>>>>>>>> man (and
>>>>>>>> woman) are replaced by computers and man is doomed to be
>>>>>>>> eradicated. What next?! Cars that drive themselves? Oh wait!
>>>>>>>> Mercedes has already been
>>>>>>>> working on that one.
>>>>>>>> And my company is working to remove all its workforce and what it
>>>>>>>> can't remove it outsources to India.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are obsolete! (from a Twilight Zone episode)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Better yet, "To Serve Man".
>>>>>
>>>>> mmMMMMMmmmm....soilent green.
>>>>>
>>>> One man, sautéed in olive oil...
>>>
>>> No MSG!!!!
>>>
>>> Brian
>>
>> Don't need it if man is fresh, not frozen!
>
> Light or dark meat?
>
Red...and it tastes like chicken.

[[email protected]]

John wrote:
> European jet maker Airbus is taking an unprecedented step to expand
> cockpit automation: onboard computers that will automatically maneuver
> jetliners to avoid midair collisions, without any pilot input.
>
> Known for its pioneering use of computers and software to push the
> automation envelope, this time Airbus has decided to cross a new
> threshold in replacing pilot decisions with computer commands. For the
> first time, flight crews of Airbus planes will be instructed and trained
> to rely on autopilots in most cases to escape an impending crash with
> another airborne aircraft. Currently, all commercial pilots are required
> to instantly disconnect the autopilot when they get an alert of such an
> emergency, and manually put their plane into a climb or descent to avoid
> the other aircraft.
>
>
> http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114868117828864620-pgHVZtbrCV92Vgn8zgwXom60Hgg_20070527.html?mod=tff_ main_tff_top
> or http://tinyurl.com/lnlky

Yep, evolution:
Scarebus
Scarierbus
Scariestbus

Whats the difference between an A320 and a chainsaw? About 100 trees
a minute. (see the A320 autoland video if you don't get it)

:)

[Gerry Caron]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Whats the difference between an A320 and a chainsaw? About 100 trees
> a minute. (see the A320 autoland video if you don't get it)
>
Or:

What's the difference between a Cri-Cri and an A320?

One's an airplane with lawnmower engines, the other a lawnmower with
airplane engines.

;-)

[Capt.Doug]

>"John" > wrote in message
> European jet maker Airbus is taking an unprecedented step to expand
> cockpit automation: onboard computers that will automatically maneuver
> jetliners to avoid midair collisions, without any pilot input.
>
> Known for its pioneering use of computers and software to push the
> automation envelope, this time Airbus has decided to cross a new
> threshold in replacing pilot decisions with computer commands.

Bus wanted to do the same with TAWS. Fortunately, us stupid peelots know
just enough to figure out which circuit creakers to pull and reset to fix
their pioneering computers and software.

D. (likes Boeing more every flight)

[john smith]

In article
>,
"Capt.Doug" > wrote:

> >"John" > wrote in message
> > European jet maker Airbus is taking an unprecedented step to expand
> > cockpit automation: onboard computers that will automatically maneuver
> > jetliners to avoid midair collisions, without any pilot input.
> >
> > Known for its pioneering use of computers and software to push the
> > automation envelope, this time Airbus has decided to cross a new
> > threshold in replacing pilot decisions with computer commands.
>
> Bus wanted to do the same with TAWS. Fortunately, us stupid peelots know
> just enough to figure out which circuit creakers to pull and reset to fix
> their pioneering computers and software.

I am still awaiting an explaination as to the propper procedure to
follow when the autopilot initiates an evasive manuever, immediatly
followed by the AirBus blue screen of death when the computers decide
it's time to recycle.